Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Bobthehero wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
I remember certain forgewold units having rules where if they hit with their heavy stubber, then their main cannon got a bonus against the target. These were usually mounted on tank turrets.

The real let down is that these guns are usually obviously much larger than heavy stubbers. The Knight ones are similar in size to some tank turret guns, and yet they are piddly and weak. And while it may make its cost back, it's really not worth those 4 points. I'd rather pay a few more for a heavy bolter equivalent.

Of course, the real problem is that str 4 ap 0 is just crap these days. It's not really the heavy stubber's fault. If we were using pre-8th AP rules, it'd be ignoring guard and ork armor and actually be decent. But even then, its overpriced.

Heavy stubbers were AP6

Orks have a 6+ save, so he's half right.

 Huron black heart wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Huron black heart wrote:
They do look like they should do more, either shots or damage. But hey ho, most of the weapons in the 40k universe do.

Just what we need, even more of a "on a 2+ I kill your army" game than 8th edition already is.

Well I didn't actually say it's what I wanted, just that most of the weapons look like they'd pulverise an army on their own.

I partially fluff that in my head as each die you roll to hit being a burst of shots rather than a single round. Then it feels a bit more on point to what the dice are representing.

Excellent weapon point for point. I daresay it's a little shred of realism that keeps treadheads coming back.

The co-axial machinegun is for ranging the main gun. While computers do most of it nowadays, that's why the co-axial machine gun is there. Essentially, it's chosen for having a similar ballistic profile to the main gun in a selection of ranges the tank is likely to engage, so that the gunner can shoot the machine gun at the target, and if the machine gun hits, fire the main gun reasonably assured of a hit.

The pintle mount is for the defense of the tank, it can be used to shoo away aircraft or to shoo away infantry.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
The co-axial machinegun is for ranging the main gun. While computers do most of it nowadays, that's why the co-axial machine gun is there. Essentially, it's chosen for having a similar ballistic profile to the main gun in a selection of ranges the tank is likely to engage, so that the gunner can shoot the machine gun at the target, and if the machine gun hits, fire the main gun reasonably assured of a hit.

The pintle mount is for the defense of the tank, it can be used to shoo away aircraft or to shoo away infantry.

Now I'm imagining a Techmarine manning a Stormbolter yelling "Shoo, shoo heretic!" as he shoots at them.

 sphynx wrote:
Excellent weapon point for point. I daresay it's a little shred of realism that keeps treadheads coming back.

they were borderline pointless under the old rules but now you can split fire they are well worth taking, even if they don't get used in a very realistic way

My point is, in game when rolling for heavy stubber shots it doesn't feel like i'm firing anything that would be mounted on a medium - large tank for anti infantry work or otherwise. It feels like i'm firing a bolter and a half which in game is exactly how its represented.

Everyones bringing up historical tank comparisons but they didn't tape together a rifle and a half and glue it to the side of the tank, now did they?

it just doesn't feel right firing it from an imperial knight.

leopard wrote:

 sphynx wrote:
Excellent weapon point for point. I daresay it's a little shred of realism that keeps treadheads coming back.

they were borderline pointless under the old rules but now you can split fire they are well worth taking, even if they don't get used in a very realistic way

Pintle weapons split firing makes perfect sense, but weapons chosen for ranging should be forced to fire at the same target as the big gun (which usually tends to be the same thing they want to shoot at anyways, since most of them tend to be squishy bodies).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Facisminthe41m wrote:
My point is, in game when rolling for heavy stubber shots it doesn't feel like i'm firing anything that would be mounted on a medium - large tank for anti infantry work or otherwise. It feels like i'm firing a bolter and a half which in game is exactly how its represented.

Everyones bringing up historical tank comparisons but they didn't tape together a rifle and a half and glue it to the side of the tank, now did they?

it just doesn't feel right firing it from an imperial knight.

Feeling like you're firing a bolter is likely due to the fact that the statlines aren't really taking enough advantage of no longer being locked to S10 and down. A lot of guns have very similar profiles with just a range or number of shots difference and it may take another two editions for those things to finally start changing enough for things to feel different from each other.

And considering a Knight is largely geared up for hitting big targets, having a smaller gun that can act as a kind of point defense against infantry (the heavy stubber on the body) makes sense. More sense than the Imperium should make (I mean it should fire chainswords or something instead), sure, but it still makes sense.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
.50 cal and a 7.62mm MG on an M1 Abrams....WHY?????????

Those weapons are a lot more effective against infantry than they are in this game. A 50 cal with 1000 rounds could easily chop down 100 men in a matter of minutes. The are in essenense the perfect anti infantry weapon. In this game - a battle cannon is more effective than a machine gun against infantry.

Is it? Assuming equal points, using Imperial Guard statlines (for both attack and defense) and prices (BS 4+, 20 pts for 5 stubbers vs 22 pts for 1 battle cannon, 5+ save at T3)

3.5 shots, 1.75 hits, 1.46 wounds, ~1.5 dead models.
15 shots, 7.5 hits, 5 wounds, ~3.33 dead models.

I'm pretty sure the stubber is the better choice than the battlecannon when firing at infantry.

EDIT:
Also, a .50 cal with 1000 rounds will only kill 100 men in a matter of minutes if the men in question are lined up like it's the Civil War. If they're taking cover, lying on the ground, etc. trying not to get shot, then the .50 will probably use up 1000 rounds before killing 100 men. 100 men properly dispersed in terrain and using cover are very difficult to dislodge without tank cannons, airstrikes, artillery, grenades, etc. etc. Just look at literally every urban fight ever. This is why the concept of employment of the .50 is anti-material (kinda) and suppressive fire, rather than being used as some kind of insta-win weapon vs enemy infantry formations.

That is how armies fight in 40k though. A swarm of tyranids rushing you. Or orks. Or iG fixing bayonets. Yeah I am not talking about points efficiency though - just saying the stubber should probably be better than it is on the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I love the tripple stubber build on my repulsors though - 9 str 4 ap-1 at range 36"? Amazingly effective.

Pintle Mounts are fine, especially for 2 or 4 points. Kill one dude and they pay off, often threefold when you kill a marine with it.

Useful both in gunline or aggressive armies, where you blast big things with big guns and then spray some infantry with sponsons and pintle mounts.
Again, make a single unsaved would and the gun pays for itself. And you rarely kill just one guardsman with it.

Also when firing overwatch, every dice counts.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
The real let down is that these guns are usually obviously much larger than heavy stubbers. The Knight ones are similar in size to some tank turret guns, and yet they are piddly and weak.

Like what tank guns?

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Of course, the real problem is that str 4 ap 0 is just crap these days. It's not really the heavy stubber's fault. If we were using pre-8th AP rules, it'd be ignoring guard and ork armor and actually be decent. But even then, its overpriced.

Um, nope. Guard had 4/5+ saves. It was AP6.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
.50 cal and a 7.62mm MG on an M1 Abrams....WHY?????????

Those weapons are a lot more effective against infantry than they are in this game. A 50 cal with 1000 rounds could easily chop down 100 men in a matter of minutes. The are in essenense the perfect anti infantry weapon. In this game - a battle cannon is more effective than a machine gun against infantry.

The above is hilariously wrong. US Army estimates that one kill of enemy combatant costs them quarter of a millon bullets:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-israel-as-troops-use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-314944.html

This had been the case for pretty much every war since modern riffles and machine guns were introduced. Hell, you want to get some statistics how many enemy combatants you could expect to kill with preparatory two hour long artillery barrage from 1200 artillery pieces in both French and Russian fronts? Ammo expenditure is measured in trucks per visible dent in enemy manpower, and while 40K abstracts a lot of things to make the game playable, in real life, gun like a heavy stubber would be terrifyingly powerful and accurate to be anywhere near that effective.

Facisminthe41m wrote:
My point is, in game when rolling for heavy stubber shots it doesn't feel like i'm firing anything that would be mounted on a medium - large tank for anti infantry work or otherwise. It feels like i'm firing a bolter and a half which in game is exactly how its represented.

Everyones bringing up historical tank comparisons but they didn't tape together a rifle and a half and glue it to the side of the tank, now did they?

Except you forgot the bolter is not a rifle. It's fully automatic grenade launcher, carried by 2 meter tall superman capable of lifting stuff that would be heavy squad support weapon in human hands. Do compare it to lasgun (which is vastly more powerful weapon than 'rifles' soldier carry these days) and say how it's 'weak' again.

Also, if you were to compare real life automatic grenade launcher (like this thing) to two machine guns Abrams carries, you'd find out the AGL has much better firepower and range. The fact you need to go all the way to heavy bolter to outperform heavy stubber not only speaks volumes how strong it is, but also proves that real life billion dollar organizations somehow see value in having a gun barely better than what infantry carries on their top of the line tank. So, yeah, there is nothing wrong with putting something even stronger on fictional one.

@Irbis: your statistics about how much it costs to kill a single combatant basically just further justifies my personal viewpoint that each "to hit" roll represents a group of shots and not individual rounds. Thanks!

You have to remember, what you're shooting at doesn't want to die. And, for the most part, it's been trained and prepared to not die. So they don't typically just stand still in the open.

Why wouldn't you pay 2 points for a Storm Bolter to put on your vehicle? It's cheaper than paying for an infantry model to carry it and it allows your vehicle to contribute to the dakka without diverting it's main weapon.

 Irbis wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
The real let down is that these guns are usually obviously much larger than heavy stubbers. The Knight ones are similar in size to some tank turret guns, and yet they are piddly and weak.

Like what tank guns?

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Of course, the real problem is that str 4 ap 0 is just crap these days. It's not really the heavy stubber's fault. If we were using pre-8th AP rules, it'd be ignoring guard and ork armor and actually be decent. But even then, its overpriced.

Um, nope. Guard had 4/5+ saves. It was AP6.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
.50 cal and a 7.62mm MG on an M1 Abrams....WHY?????????

Those weapons are a lot more effective against infantry than they are in this game. A 50 cal with 1000 rounds could easily chop down 100 men in a matter of minutes. The are in essenense the perfect anti infantry weapon. In this game - a battle cannon is more effective than a machine gun against infantry.

The above is hilariously wrong. US Army estimates that one kill of enemy combatant costs them quarter of a millon bullets:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-israel-as-troops-use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-314944.html

This had been the case for pretty much every war since modern riffles and machine guns were introduced. Hell, you want to get some statistics how many enemy combatants you could expect to kill with preparatory two hour long artillery barrage from 1200 artillery pieces in both French and Russian fronts? Ammo expenditure is measured in trucks per visible dent in enemy manpower, and while 40K abstracts a lot of things to make the game playable, in real life, gun like a heavy stubber would be terrifyingly powerful and accurate to be anywhere near that effective.

Facisminthe41m wrote:
My point is, in game when rolling for heavy stubber shots it doesn't feel like i'm firing anything that would be mounted on a medium - large tank for anti infantry work or otherwise. It feels like i'm firing a bolter and a half which in game is exactly how its represented.

Everyones bringing up historical tank comparisons but they didn't tape together a rifle and a half and glue it to the side of the tank, now did they?

Except you forgot the bolter is not a rifle. It's fully automatic grenade launcher, carried by 2 meter tall superman capable of lifting stuff that would be heavy squad support weapon in human hands. Do compare it to lasgun (which is vastly more powerful weapon than 'rifles' soldier carry these days) and say how it's 'weak' again.

Also, if you were to compare real life automatic grenade launcher (like this thing) to two machine guns Abrams carries, you'd find out the AGL has much better firepower and range. The fact you need to go all the way to heavy bolter to outperform heavy stubber not only speaks volumes how strong it is, but also proves that real life billion dollar organizations somehow see value in having a gun barely better than what infantry carries on their top of the line tank. So, yeah, there is nothing wrong with putting something even stronger on fictional one.

What does this game resemble more? WW1 or modern combat? WW1 obviously. Guys still have swords. This game depicts a turkey shoot.
Imagine a 50 cal mowing down hordes of tyranids where you basically can't miss.

Keep in mind also a lot of that ammunition expenditure isn't directly aimed at killing the enemy, its aimed at suppressing them to allow someone else to kill them or to drive them off.

the shots/kill ratio for ranged weapons has never been as good as we have on the 40k table, but equally th 40k table lacks any proper suppression mechanic, or a practical morale mechanic, or cover, or any one of the millions of other things that stop the table top being a real war, but also make it damned sight quicker to play

 Xenomancers wrote:
What does this game resemble more? WW1 or modern combat? WW1 obviously. Guys still have swords. This game depicts a turkey shoot.
Imagine a 50 cal mowing down hordes of tyranids where you basically can't miss.

Do some research to find out how many bullets from a machine gun it took to kill one man even in World War 1:
Hint: It's more than 10.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
The real let down is that these guns are usually obviously much larger than heavy stubbers. The Knight ones are similar in size to some tank turret guns, and yet they are piddly and weak.

Like what tank guns?

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Of course, the real problem is that str 4 ap 0 is just crap these days. It's not really the heavy stubber's fault. If we were using pre-8th AP rules, it'd be ignoring guard and ork armor and actually be decent. But even then, its overpriced.

Um, nope. Guard had 4/5+ saves. It was AP6.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
.50 cal and a 7.62mm MG on an M1 Abrams....WHY?????????

Those weapons are a lot more effective against infantry than they are in this game. A 50 cal with 1000 rounds could easily chop down 100 men in a matter of minutes. The are in essenense the perfect anti infantry weapon. In this game - a battle cannon is more effective than a machine gun against infantry.

The above is hilariously wrong. US Army estimates that one kill of enemy combatant costs them quarter of a millon bullets:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-israel-as-troops-use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-314944.html

This had been the case for pretty much every war since modern riffles and machine guns were introduced. Hell, you want to get some statistics how many enemy combatants you could expect to kill with preparatory two hour long artillery barrage from 1200 artillery pieces in both French and Russian fronts? Ammo expenditure is measured in trucks per visible dent in enemy manpower, and while 40K abstracts a lot of things to make the game playable, in real life, gun like a heavy stubber would be terrifyingly powerful and accurate to be anywhere near that effective.

Facisminthe41m wrote:
My point is, in game when rolling for heavy stubber shots it doesn't feel like i'm firing anything that would be mounted on a medium - large tank for anti infantry work or otherwise. It feels like i'm firing a bolter and a half which in game is exactly how its represented.

Everyones bringing up historical tank comparisons but they didn't tape together a rifle and a half and glue it to the side of the tank, now did they?

Except you forgot the bolter is not a rifle. It's fully automatic grenade launcher, carried by 2 meter tall superman capable of lifting stuff that would be heavy squad support weapon in human hands. Do compare it to lasgun (which is vastly more powerful weapon than 'rifles' soldier carry these days) and say how it's 'weak' again.

Also, if you were to compare real life automatic grenade launcher (like this thing) to two machine guns Abrams carries, you'd find out the AGL has much better firepower and range. The fact you need to go all the way to heavy bolter to outperform heavy stubber not only speaks volumes how strong it is, but also proves that real life billion dollar organizations somehow see value in having a gun barely better than what infantry carries on their top of the line tank. So, yeah, there is nothing wrong with putting something even stronger on fictional one.

What does this game resemble more? WW1 or modern combat? WW1 obviously. Guys still have swords. This game depicts a turkey shoot.
Imagine a 50 cal mowing down hordes of tyranids where you basically can't miss.

No one tell him about WWII and Churchill who carried a sword, or the Japanese officers who were also carrying swords (and even had competitions on who could get the most sword kills).

Yes, real life is just as silly and unrealistic at its core.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:
Keep in mind also a lot of that ammunition expenditure isn't directly aimed at killing the enemy, its aimed at suppressing them to allow someone else to kill them or to drive them off.

the shots/kill ratio for ranged weapons has never been as good as we have on the 40k table, but equally th 40k table lacks any proper suppression mechanic, or a practical morale mechanic, or cover, or any one of the millions of other things that stop the table top being a real war, but also make it damned sight quicker to play

We used to have a pinning mechanic, but it went the way of the dodo (as did the mechanic of guys hitting the dirt to try and not die).

leopard wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
.50 cal and a 7.62mm MG on an M1 Abrams....WHY?????????

because a .50 cal or 7.62mm round is a lot cheaper than the main cannot rounds, you can carry a lot more of them, and something else 40k doesn't represent very well, both can be fired at faster moving targets with a much higher chance of hitting them - e.g. infantry scuttling between buildings, helicopters or other things the main cannon cannot even elevate well enough to hit and similar.

So the "simulation-solution" wouldn't be dropping the stubbers. It'd be changing the rules so tank-busing "heavy weapons" (not in the sense of the game-term) like battle cannons, lascannons, big Knight-guns, etc.. cannot (effectively) shoot infantry, bikes, fliers, etc.., etc.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

leopard wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
.50 cal and a 7.62mm MG on an M1 Abrams....WHY?????????

because a .50 cal or 7.62mm round is a lot cheaper than the main cannot rounds, you can carry a lot more of them, and something else 40k doesn't represent very well, both can be fired at faster moving targets with a much higher chance of hitting them - e.g. infantry scuttling between buildings, helicopters or other things the main cannon cannot even elevate well enough to hit and similar.

So the "simulation-solution" wouldn't be dropping the stubbers. It'd be changing the rules so tank-busing "heavy weapons" (not in the sense of the game-term) like battle cannons, lascannons, big Knight-guns, etc.. cannot (effectively) shoot infantry, bikes, fliers, etc.., etc.

To be fair, tank-busting heavy weapons can also be used against infantry. Battle Cannons fire high-explosive shells, for example. If you want IRL examples, look at the Israeli Spike which can have incendiary and concussion munitions.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

leopard wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
.50 cal and a 7.62mm MG on an M1 Abrams....WHY?????????

because a .50 cal or 7.62mm round is a lot cheaper than the main cannot rounds, you can carry a lot more of them, and something else 40k doesn't represent very well, both can be fired at faster moving targets with a much higher chance of hitting them - e.g. infantry scuttling between buildings, helicopters or other things the main cannon cannot even elevate well enough to hit and similar.

So the "simulation-solution" wouldn't be dropping the stubbers. It'd be changing the rules so tank-busing "heavy weapons" (not in the sense of the game-term) like battle cannons, lascannons, big Knight-guns, etc.. cannot (effectively) shoot infantry, bikes, fliers, etc.., etc.

look at V1 of Space Marine, you have soft and hard taregts, weapons have different profiles against each - laser cannon stuggles to hurt an infantry squad, but can much more easily hit a tank

for battle cannons you just assume the thing has a few types of shell and the crew are bright enough to pick the correct one.

I do think we would do better to have a few different types of target and have some weapons get hit modifiers against non-optimal ones

Facisminthe41m wrote:
My point is, in game when rolling for heavy stubber shots it doesn't feel like i'm firing anything that would be mounted on a medium - large tank for anti infantry work or otherwise. It feels like i'm firing a bolter and a half which in game is exactly how its represented.

Everyones bringing up historical tank comparisons but they didn't tape together a rifle and a half and glue it to the side of the tank, now did they?

it just doesn't feel right firing it from an imperial knight.

I think you are ignoring just how powerful S4 is supposed to be in-universe. For 4 editions, it was the lightest strength that could threaten a vehicle- tank rear armour, light walkers, landspeeders and such were all fair game for the mighty bolter and heavy stubber. You've also poo-pooed its range and weight of fire- 3 - which makes it equivalent to 3 bolters at 24 inches and superior to a million bolters at 25-36 inches. Three(3) of mankind's (2nd or 3rd :( )most elite soldiers holy weapons, wielded by a single guardsman leaning out of a cupola yelling obscenities.

You are coming at it the wrong way. The tank in an IG army is a durable firepoint in an army of squishy mortals. Infantry squads can be removed easily enough, tanks require dedicated attention. If I had my way, every weapon in my army would be strapped to a leman russ: lasgun and laspistol, combat knifes and all. Guard squads would move naked and unarmed from cover to cover to stand on objectives, supported by relentless storms of lasfire that make the russ impossible to look at directly.

Previously, russes could take stormbolters as mg equivalents and this option rarely saw play- 24 inches doesn't gel well with other russ weapon ranges which can be fired safely out of infantry's reach. When the option arrived to strap an extra 3 at 36 inch range shots to my hard-to-kill dakka boxes, I leapt at the chance.You'll notice that this brings the total number of non turret shots a russ can fire up to 12- a sizeable weight of anti infantry dice. Consider rolling the dice together and making machinegun noises and you'll have more fun.

Alternatively, field your russes bear-bones so as to squeeze in more russes.